The 40% President
 

September 7 2005
Counterbias.com
Scott C. Smith
 

When Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf coast, people wondered when President George W. Bush would show up at the scene to offer some hope to the 100,000 plus people left behind in New Orleans. When would the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) take action? The truth of the matter is, FEMA was slow to respond, and Bush decided not to be presidential.

What happened to the George W. Bush of September 11, 2001? The strong figure who was at ground zero, bullhorn in hand, offering up support and encouraging words to the firemen, police and others involved in rescue efforts. That Bush is gone, perhaps lost to history. Bush in his second term is a lame-duck do-nothing Chief Executive, with a job approval rating of about 40%, the worst ever for him. Bill Clinton’s job approval rating during the impeachment hearings of 1998 was at 73% in a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll. I doubt that Bush’s numbers will ever be that high.

Bush was riding high after his re-election. At a White House press conference on Nov. 4, 2004, Bush said he would use the “political capital” he earned from the election to push his agenda for the second term: “Let me put it to you this way: I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it. It is my style. That's what happened in the -- after the 2000 election, I earned some capital. I've earned capital in this election -- and I'm going to spend it for what I told the people I'd spend it on, which is -- you've heard the agenda: Social Security and tax reform, moving this economy forward, education, fighting and winning the war on terror."

Here we are now, nine months into the second term, and Bush has squandered his capital. What happened to Social Security reform? Why haven’t we caught Osama Bin Laden? What exactly is his administration doing for education, if that administration wants to cut funding to the Federal Perkins Loan Program?

When Republicans talk about the Clinton administration, they’ll mention the “scandals” of his administration, always trying to make the argument of what a poor president Bill Clinton was.

Of course, those same Republicans look away when it comes to this administration. Let’s start with the flawed intelligence of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction that was the basis of our attacking Iraq in 2003. When no weapons were found, no one was held accountable. The CIA was criticized for its role in the bad intelligence, yet the former CIA Director George Tenet was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom for…what, exactly? Who knows? I doubt Bush will ever be stuck with the nickname “The Accountability President.”

As the war raged on with no end in sight, the administration kept changing the reasons we were at war. First it was to capture WMDs, then it was to fight terrorism, and now the reasoning seems to be that we need to stay and fight because, as Bush said during a radio address on Aug. 13, 2005, the fight in Iraq needed to continue in order to “honor the fallen by completing the mission for which they gave their lives, and by doing so we will ensure that freedom and peace prevail.”

As of this writing, 1887 troops have died in Iraq attempting to “complete the mission,” whatever that might be.

Our 40% president surrounds himself with people whose actions shed a bad light on the Administration. Bush’s top political advisor, Karl Rove, found himself in the media spotlight when Time Magazine reporter Matt Cooper revealed in July of 2005 that Rove had spoke with him about the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame. The administration, through spokesman Scott McClellan, had in the past denied any involvement by Rove; McClellan dismissed suggestions of Rove’s involvement as “ridiculous.”  Why, McClellan had even asked Rove if he was involved, and Rove said he wasn’t. In 2003, the Bush administration was ready to fire anyone involved in leaking Valerie Plame’s name to columnist Robert Novak. Fast-forward to 2005, and the Bush administration has changed tactics about the leaker, saying anyone who had been involved illegally would be fired. Such is the action of our 40% president, passing the buck around like a Frisbee at a Grateful Dead (or Phish) concert.

The only thing Bush holds himself accountable for is giving the most wealthy in America more money, and getting a good nap every afternoon.

Which brings us full circle to the horrible tragedy in New Orleans. And no, I’m not going to blame President Bush for the hurricane. But I will blame Bush for past actions that might have prevented some of the devastation in New Orleans: shipping off many of Louisiana’s National Guard members to Iraq and slashing budgets requested by the New Orleans Army Corps of Engineers for hurricane-related projects. That money was spent on rebuilding Iraq. Could repairs to the levees have saved lives? Maybe. Would having more National Guard troops on the ground immediately have saved lives? Probably. And I’m pretty sure that the people left behind in New Orleans would have been glad for fresh water. According to Jefferson Parish President Aaron Broussard, Wal-Mart had dispatched three trucks carrying fresh water, only to be turned away by FEMA.

Bush’s defenders will contend that he and his administration are not required to arrive at the scene immediately following any natural disaster. And while that point can be argued, we can again look back to the aftermath of September 11th, when President Bush came to ground zero to offer support and comfort. Bush’s presence surely was of comfort to the firefighters, police, and others involved in cleanup and rescue efforts. I think his presence immediately in New Orleans (and not stopping for photo ops to be presented with a guitar while corpses float in the flooded streets of New Orleans) would have helped the morale of some, maybe many. The 9/11 Bush is gone. Say hello to our 40% president.